1 / 18

Chapter 4 - Adjudications

Explore the rights and requirements for pre-action hearings, substitutes for hearings, due process in student suspensions, and avoiding bias in administrative hearings.

tirrell
Download Presentation

Chapter 4 - Adjudications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 4 - Adjudications Part III

  2. Any Pre-Action Hearing Rights after Matthews?

  3. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) • Firing a teacher • Applying the Matthews factors, how do you argue that an informal pre-termination hearing is required? • How is this different from Matthews itself as regards to the ability to cure problems with a post-termination hearing?

  4. Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)Has there been a substitute for a hearing? • Who did the guard work for? • Why did this make his arrest for marijuana possession a particular problem? • Did he get any due process prior to this suspension from the workplace? • What was the importance of the decision by an "independent body" and what was the body? • What are the limits of this opinion? • Why does this being a temporary suspension matter?

  5. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) • High school student suspended from school • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis?

  6. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) • School paddling case • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis? • How does the analysis differ from Goss? • Why? • Do we still paddle students? • Why not? • Is hauling them to jail more protective of their rights?

  7. Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) • Academic suspension case for a medical student • What due process did the court require? • What was the Mathews analysis? • What would be the costs of having due process for every failing student? • What would be the facts at issue? • Would this analysis differ if this had been a disciplinary suspension?

  8. Law School Disciple and Due Process • Why does Mathews result in different standards for academic and disciplinary suspensions? • How do we tell whether it is an academic or disciplinary issue? • What about plagiarism? Cheating? • What is the role of special expertise and deference? • Is this just judicial deference to agency expertise and policy making, with the school as agency?

  9. Bias in Administrative Hearings

  10. What does a Right to an Impartial Judge Mean? • What are sources of bias? • How is the analysis different for agencies than for Article III courts? • What is separation of functions? • How does it reduce potential bias? • This argument lead to the central panel of ALJs in LA.

  11. The Problem of Proof of Bias • We will see more about this in the chapter on judicial review • The core problem is that you cannot judge bias by only looking at the record, but the courts are unwilling to allow discovery into the motives of the judges • It would be like getting to depose an Article III judge as part of the appeal of a summary judgment.

  12. Exception to the Requirement of Separation of Functions for the Heads of Agencies • 554(d) • This subsection does not apply ... • (C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency. • The “agency” means the secretary in an agency with a single head. • The “body comprising the agency” is the commissioners or board members of an agency headed by a committee.

  13. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) • State medical licensing board • What were the functions? • What did the doc request? • Why did the court find that it was not necessary to separate them? • The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of the need for an unbiased decision maker, but it found that the mere combination of investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions in the same entity did not necessarily make the entity biased in adjudicating. • Why is the record so important in these cases? • Why would an independent ALJ be a particular problem for these cases?

  14. Disqualifying an Administrative Law Decisionmaker for Bias • What is the United States Supreme Court standard? • “irrevocably closed mind” • What does it take to show this? • What happened in Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 336 F.2d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1964)? • Why does mean that the head of the EPA needed to be circumspect in comments about the BP fines? • Would generalized statements, such as the FCC chair deploring advertising to children, meet the standard? • What is the Doctrine of Necessity?

  15. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. FTC, 467 F.2d 67 (10th Cir. 1972) • Kennecott owned a small coal company, then bought a big one - Peabody • FTC investigated this as an antitrust violation • A commissioner gave an interview and explained that the agency saw Kennecott as removing itself as a competitor. • Kennecott claimed this showed bias • The court said no, but warned the agency to be more careful.

  16. Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966) • Who was meddling in the FTC case? • What did Senator Kefauver say? • What the court was worried about: • However, when such an investigation focuses directly and substantially upon the mental decisional processes of a Commission in a case which is pending before it, Congress is no longer intervening in the agency's legislative function, but rather, in its judicial function. At this latter point, we become concerned with the right of private litigants to a fair trial and, equally important, with their right to the appearance of impartiality, which cannot be maintained unless those who exercise the judicial function are free from powerful external influences.

  17. The Pillsbury Ruling • What happens if the court disqualifies the commission because of the intimidation in the Senate hearing? • The court’s solution: • Although we conclude that the course of the questioning before the Senate subcommittee in June 1955 deprived the petitioner of the kind of hearing contemplated by the Supreme Court ... we are convinced that the Commission is not permanently disqualified to decide this case. We are convinced that the passage of time, coupled with the changes in personnel on the Commission, sufficiently insulate the present members from any outward effect from what occurred in 1955.

  18. What should Congress be able to do in Hearings and for Casework? • Congressional case work – doing things for constituents such as checking on Social Security Benefits or trying to get bank regulators to lay off. • What should be allowed and what would be forbidden under Pillsbury and what you know about due process? • What if the president is meddling? • How does this change the issues? • Is he the decider?

More Related